ISSN 1000-3665 CN 11-2202/P

    红原-若尔盖生态保护区地下水质量评价方法研究

    Groundwater quality assessment Methods in the Hongyuan-Ruo’ergai Ecological Reserve

    • 摘要: 地下水作为水资源的重要组成部分,在维持生态系统稳定、保障人类用水需求等方面发挥着重要作用,但地下水水质变化对生态系统的作用机制与对人类健康的影响存在本质差异,现行常用的《地下水质量标准》(GB/T 14848—2017)是以人体健康、地下水质量保护为目标。为提出适用于生态保护区地下水质量评价方法,本研究以受自然条件控制为主的四川省红原-若尔盖生态保护区为例,运用最差指标评价法、熵权水质指数法(EWQI)、水质指数法(WI)及分类组合评价法4种方法分别评价,并分析评价结果和方法缺陷。结果表明:四川红原-若尔盖生态保护区地下水中含超标的组分主要为锰、耗氧量、总硬度、氨氮,4种方法评价结果差异较大,最差指标评价法的评价结果显示研究区水质较差(Ⅳ、V类地下水占72.29%),与区内人类活动较少的现状不符;WI、EWQI评价结果则与最差指标法差异显著,且等级分布较为集中,EWQI受绝对含量低、变异系数较高的微量元素影响较大,WI则未考虑水质等级边界的影响;分类组合评价法显示研究区以Ⅱ类、Ⅲ类地下水为主(占比达到66.67%),且评价结果呈正态分布,与研究区实际情况更为吻合。分类组合评价法考虑了指标浓度的连续性,并将生态系统敏感性指标、毒理指标和一般化学指标分开评价,具有灵活性,适应不同需求,可为类似生态保护区的地下水质量评价提供科学参考。

       

      Abstract: Groundwater is a critical component of water resources that supports ecosystem functioning and sustains human water demand. However, the pathways and mechanisms through which changes in groundwater quality affect ecosystems differ fundamentally from those associated with human health. Existing groundwater quality assessment standards, including the commonly adopted Groundwater Quality Standard (GB/T 14848–2017), are primarily designed for drinking-water safety and groundwater quality protection and may not adequately reflect ecological sensitivity in conservation areas. To develop an assessment approach more suitable for ecological protection regions, this study selected the Hongyuan-Ruo’ergai Ecological Reserve region in Sichuan Province, w a region where groundwater quality is predominantly controlled by natural processes, as a case study. Four evaluation approaches, including Worst-Indicator Evaluation, Entropy-Weighted Water Quality Index (EWQI), Water Index (WI), and Classification-Combination Evaluation, were applied and comparatively analyzed. The results indicate that the primary components exceeding standards in the groundwater of the Hongyuan-Ruo’ergai Ecological Reserve are manganese (33.33%), oxygen consumption (21.79%), total hardness (14.10%), and ammonia nitrogen (10.26%). The evaluation results from the four methods varied significantly. The Worst-Indicator method suggests poor water quality in the study area (Class IV and V groundwater accounted for 72.29%), which does not align with the area's minimal human activity. In contrast, WI and EWQI results are markedly different, with more concentrated grade distributions; EWQI is highly sensitive to trace constituents with low absolute content and high variation coefficients, while WI does not explicitly account for transitions across water quality classification boundaries. The Classification-Combination Evaluation shows that the study area is mainly comprised of Class II and III groundwater (accounting for 66.67%), and the evaluation results follow a normal distribution, better reflecting the actual condition of the area. The Classification-Combination Evaluation method takes into account the continuity of indicator concentrations and separately evaluates ecosystem-sensitive indices, toxicological indices, and general chemical indices, providing a flexible and transferable approach for groundwater quality assessment in ecologically sensitive regions.

       

    /

    返回文章
    返回